Kerala History Class 1

STRICTLY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION KERALA HISTORY FOR KAS
SYAMPRASAD P B
syamizm@gmail.com
SYAMPRASAD P B 1 syamizm@gmail.com
Background:
SYLLABUS:
Kerala History (from 18th century):-
(i) Pre-Independence socio-political movements.

(ii) Formation of Kerala State,
(iii) Political parties, movements, Governments,
(iv) Landmark legislations and policies.
The Syllabus clearly defines the scope of the Kerala History part as starting from “Pre-
Independence socio-political movements”.
We need to understand the context behind this rationale, and understand the
background of the topics.
A theocratic Society:
By the end of 18th century, what we know as Kerala today, was three distinct political
units, the British Malabar in the north, Princely State of Cochin in the Middle and the
Princely State of Travancore at the South. The Society was hierarchical based on Caste.
The social sanction of Caste was based on religion and the State enforced Caste based
discrimination.
Seeds of Change: Invasion of Mysore
Eighteenth century was a period of transition. A lot of changes took place in polity
society and economy of Kerala. Venad, a small nadu until the 18th century was
transformed into a powerful state (Tiruvithamkur) during the period of Marthanda
Varma (1729-58). The Mysorean attacks on Kerala under Haider Ali and his son Tipu
Sultan during the second half of the 18th century was a turning point in the course of
the later day history of Kerala especially Malabar.
Mysorean Rule in Administration and Land Relations
In 1756-57 when Hyder Ali was the Foujdar (military Commander) of Mysorean army at
Dindigil was involved in a dispute between Zamorin and the Palakkad Achan. The Komi
Achan of Palakkad sought the help of the ruler of Mysore. The raja of Mysore instructed
Hyder Ali to proceed to Malabar. Alarmed by the situation Zamorin concluded a treaty
which agreed to pay an amount of 12 lakhs. However the Zamorin failed to pay the
promised amount to the raja of Mysore. Meanwhile Hyder Ali deposed the raja of Mysore
and consolidated power in his own hands in 1761. Later Hyder Ali was invited to invade
Malabar by Ali Raja of Kannur.
Ali Raja and Chirakal dynasties sided with Hyder Ali. Zamorins army failed to counter
the Mysorean army. The Mysorean Army reached Kozhikode and camped outside his
palace. Zamorin shifted his family members to Ponnani. Zamorin again tried to conclude
a treaty however Hyder Ali demanded ten million gold coins. Zamorin was not in a
situation to raise such a huge demand. Hence on 27th April 1765 Samuthiri set fire to
his palace and committed suicide.
After the suicide of Zamorin, Hyder Ali was able to control major areas of Malabar and
appointed two of his official Matanna, to collect taxes and Raza Ali in charge of Military
operations in Malabar. When the monsoon started the Nair soldiers of Malabar especially
of Kozhikode, Kottayam and Kolathunad used it as an opportunity and started an
kottayam dynasty of wayanad (not kottayam)
extensive rebellion. The rebels defeated Raza Ali and his army. Soon after hearing the
details about the rebellion, Hyder proceeded to Malabar with a strong Army and
ruthlessly crushed the Rebellion. However when Hyder Ali went to Mysore the Nair
soldiers once started a revolt. The Rebels were able to defeat Mysorean army in different
parts of Malabar especially in Kottayam. This forced Hyder Ali to return to Malabar.
Soon Hyder Ali returned to Malabar and defeated the rulers of Kolathunad and Kottayam.
The rulers of Malabar were forced to give Hyder Ali a fixed amount of fixed tribute
(Kappam). While Kannur and Palakkad were kept under Hyder Ali.
The Mysorean army was withdrawn from Kerala in 1768. The rulers of Malabar did not
give the fixed amount of annual tribute to Hyder Ali. Hyder Ali Again came to Malabar
through Wayanad in 1773 and attacked the rebel rulers of Malabar. He appointed
Srinivasa Rao and Sadar Khan as the civil administrator and military commander
respectively. Later Hyder Ali targeted the kingdom of Kochi and the ruler of Kochi agreed
to pay annual tribute. Later Hyder Ali demanded the ruler of Travancore to his
suzerainty; however it was rejected by the king of Travancore. Soon Hyder decided to
attack Travancore, but he could not carryon his attack because of the war in Mysore.
The Mysorean army under Sardar khan attacked the Thalassery fort as a part of second
Anglo-Mysore war in 1780. However they were not able to conquer Thalassery. In
January 1782 the English army defeated the Mysorean Army Sardar Khan committed
Suicide. Hyder Ali died in December 1782 and succeeded by his son Tipu Sultan. The
Second Anglo-Mysore War came to an end in 1784 as per the treaty of Mangalore. As per
the provisions of the treaty English East India Company gave up its claim on malabar
and recognised the Mysorean Supremacy in Malabar. Thus Malabar once again came
into the hands of Mysoreans.
Reforms by Tipu.
Tipu appointed Arshad Beg khan as the governor of Malabar. Tipu also appointed
Ibrahim as the new revenue official in malabar. he introduced many revenue reforms in
Malabar and initially increased the land tax. The increased land tax resulted in a lot of
protests against the Mysoreans in different parts of malabar in 1785-86. In Manjeri the
leader of the revolt was Attan Gurukal. Tipu Removed Arshad beg and Ibrahim from
their posts. In January 1788 and took administration of malabar. He made Feroke near
Kozhikode as the new capital. Tipu introduced many reforms in Malabar however most
remained as a failure. Tipu after suppressing revolts in malabar aimed to conquer
Travancore. The main reason was that Tipu believed that the ruler of Travancore was
behind the political unrest in malabar. Dharmaraja the ruler of Travancore provided
shelter to the enemies of Tipu mainly belonging to Malabar. The ruler of Travancore
constructed Nedumkotta. Tipu stated that the fort was bilt in the territory of Kochi and
old Dharmaraja to demolish it. The Ruler of Travancore after discussing Company
officials rejected the demand of Tipu.
A section of historians say that his reign swept in rapid social and economic
improvements in Malabar, and tossed aside existing class and caste hierarchies, a point
seldom discussed in popular culture. The direct rule of Mysore was marked by extensive
land reforms, due to which local landless Muslims and lower-caste Hindus benefited the
most.
Tipu’s rule is said to have brought instant relief to communities who had suffered
tremendously under the yoke of upper-caste Namboodiris and Nairs, who owned much
of the land at the time. no tax to 'DEVASWOM'
“It was during Hyder Ali’s rule that land surveys first began to be conducted in Malabar.
Until then, the state had no direct control over land. There was no revenue system.
During the rule of the Mysore kings, landlords were asked how much land they
possessed, and told to pay revenue to the state. So naturally, they (upper-caste Hindu
landlords) were upset,” : M P Mujeebu Rahman, professor of history at the University of
Calicut.
Tipu empowered the poor Muslim share-croppers who were hugely exploited by the
Hindu elite. They were actually empowered by him with land grants.: J Devika,
historian-researcher at the Centre for Development Studies
Tipu with a huge army moved to demolish the fort in December 1789. By April 1790 the
Mysoreans demolished some parts of the fort. Meanwhile Company declared war against
Mysore and attacked Mysore. This forced Tipu to return to Mysore. The local chieftains
of Malabar supported British in this war. Thus Kottayam, Kurumbranad and
Kadathanad became free from Mysorian domination. Tipu was completed defeated in the
third Anglo Mysore war and forced to sign the treaty in March 1792. Thus Malabar was
ceded to English East India Company. The English East India Company like its
predecessors the Portuguese, Dutch and French came to India mainly for trade. But
unlike other European powers they were able to establish a vast colonial empire in India
including Kerala. The English East India Company got Malabar from Tipu Sultan by the
treaty of Srirangapatanam on 18th March 1792. Thus the British got control of spice
trade in Malabar just after the treaty and as per Lord Cornwallis order, General
Abercrombie the Governor of Bombay, appointed William S Farmer and Major Alexander
Dow as commissioners on behalf of Bombay Presidency. In course of time, Jonathan
Duncan and Charles Boddam joined as Commissioners representing Governor General
comprised the Joint Commissioners. The main duty of the Joint Commissioners was
political settlement with the local rulers and to recommend new administrative system in
Malabar. The Joint Commissioners submitted their report in 1793 and elaborately
mentioned the local rulers of Malabar. The Joint Commissioners settlement with local
rulers and chiefs was mainly focused on revenue collection and tribute to be paid by the
rulers to English East India Company.
The British initially established courts and appointed proper person as judges in July
1792. Hindus and Muslims were tried separately by the laws of Vedas and Quran
respectively. As economic ambition was the main reason for annexation of Malabar, the
Joint commissioners declared freedom of trade in all articles except pepper.As its trade
was proclaimed as English East India Company’s monopoly. On 1st January 1793 the
Joint Commissioners established two separate courts at Kozhikode, first dealt with
revenue and land related cases while the second dealt with cases of claims other than
revenue and land relations. Similarly changes were introduced in land ownerships too.
It was on 18th March 1793 that the administration of Malabar was formally and publicly
established by the British as ‘ Province of Malabar,’ divided into two superintendence’s,
under the control of a supervisor at Kozhikode and assisted by two superintendents
located at Thalassery and Cherpulachery. Thus, William G Farmer sworn in as the first
Supervisor and Magistrate of Malabar and he was head of political, revenue and judicial
department. The supervisor post was later abolished in 1801. From October 1801
onwards, the principal collector became the head of Malabar.
The English East India Company also signed treaties with the rulers of Travancore and
Cochin. By the treaty concluded with the English East India Company in 1795, the ruler
of Travancore accepted the British supremacy and in return English East India
Company promised help to them in the event of external aggression. Col. Macaulay was
appointed as the resident of Travancore. A treaty was signed between the raja of Cochin
and English East India Company in 1791 by which the raja of Cochin become a vassal of
the English East India Company and also agreed to pay annual tribute to English East
India Company. Company offered assistance for recovering areas captured by Tipu
Sultan. Later in 1800 Cochin State was placed under the control of Madras Presidency.
Meanwhile in 1805 a new treaty was signed by the Raja of Travancore with English East
India Company mainly due to the advice of Velu tamp Dalawa. By this treaty the British
resident got powers to interfere in administration of Travancore. Thus the treaty resulted
in the loss of political freedom of Travancore. Thus soon after the defeat of Tipu in third
Anglo-Mysore war the English was able to exercise control whole of Kerala.
Perhaps the greatest impact of Hyder and Tipu was in the area of land administration. In
this area one can also see the displacement of dominant castes, which gave rise to
accusations of religious bigotry. Historians have written about how there were no land
taxes in Malabar before it came under Mysore rule. The “jenmis” (landed aristocracy)
were the absolute owners of land with the tiller having no claims. The Mysorean rulers
shook up this system and settled land revenue claims directly with the tiller. In this way,
Hyder and Tipu can be seen as early reformers in land administration. The rulers
ensured that temple land remained untaxed. Land settlement became easy because the
landowners—the Namboodiris, the chieftains and the Nairs—had fled from Malabar to
Travancore. The tenants, who were mainly mappilas or lower caste Hindus, benefited
from this.
Tipu also saw himself as a social reformer and attempted to change some of the
traditional aspects of Nair society. For instance, he was appalled when he found out that
Nair women cohabited with several men. He was also disgusted by the practice of lower
caste women not being permitted to cover their breasts. Tipu forbade these practices,
which was resented by the Nairs, who saw this as an encroachment on their religious
and social rights.
Nairs and Namboodiris comprised a fifth of the population of Malabar and the upheaval
wrought about by Hyder and Tipu in the caste and class privileges of these two
communities led to social upheaval. The Namboodiris and the Nairs suffered the most
during the time of Tipu. These two castes were severely affected by the political, social
and economic reforms undertaken by Tipu. Kareem writes: “It was, therefore, the
economic and social reforms that paved the way for the accusations of religious bigotry
brought against Tipu Sultan.” It was also easy to see the issues of land and social reform
along religious lines, as the main beneficiaries of Tipu’s land reforms were the mappilas.
Some scholars have also made connections between the social upheaval caused due to
the Mysorean interlude and the mappila rebellion of 1921.
Problematic sources
Mark Wilks, an officer of the East India Company who participated in the final storming
of Srirangapatna in 1799, recorded in his work that Tipu warned the Nairs that if they
continued to adhere to their regressive caste practices and disobeyed his commands he
would march all of them to Srirangapatna and convert them to Islam. The aspect of Tipu
threatening conversion is strangely not contained in the account of Mir Hussain Ali
Khan Kirmani, the avid court chronicler of Hyder and Tipu’s reigns who tinged his
histories with an Islamic slant and never failed to present Tipu as a champion of Islam.
The early works of writers like Wilks provided the basis for later writers like William
Logan, who, as Collector of Malabar, wrote the two-volume Malabar Manual in 1887.
Much of the allegations against Tipu regarding religious violence in Malabar come from
this writer.
Thus, if one were to examine closely the various sources that vilify Tipu in Malabar, they
are usually of two kinds: first, British writers who found in Tipu their arch villain and
exaggerated aspects of his religious policy, and second, the writings of local upper castes
who had lost considerable privileges during the Mysore rule.
However, there are young historians like M.P. Mujeebu Rehman, assistant professor in
the Department of History at the University of Calicut, and Abhilash Malayil, a PhD
student at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
Mandi, who have assessed the Mysorean interlude in Malabar history objectively by
faithfully historicising the period rather than seeing it in the surcharged communal
atmosphere of contemporary politics.
Rehman writes in his book The Other Side of the Story: Tipu Sultan, Colonialism and
Resistance in Malabar (2016): “The falsified image of Tipu Sultan, popularised fervently
by the colonial writers, in fact was of ‘religious bigotry’. They had realised the fact that
no other stereotypes could be so sensitively worked out among the Hindu believers than
that of religious bigotry. Both colonial and nationalist historians highlighted religious
aspects of Mysorean interventions concealing its political or economic aspects. For
instance, they maintained that Tipu invaded Malabar and hundreds of thousands of
native non-Muslims were hanged, circumcised or exiled. Several such statements have
reverberated even in contemporary discourse without any substantial evidence other
than the colonial narratives.”
Muhamad Ismail writes: “It is high time that we reinvestigate on the basis of true
historical records, however meagre they may be, everything that has been unleashed
against Tipu Sultan and the Mysore administration. It has been proved by recent
historians engaged in the study of the Sultan’s history that the descriptions of the
widespread arson, loot and violence that the Hindus of Malabar faced at the Mysorean
interlude were mostly fallacies of imagination or the result of the retaliation of the
Sultans against rebels.”
Tipu was aware that he was a Muslim king while his subjects were mainly Hindu and he
legitimised his reign through generous support to temples in his domains. As the Inam
Registers have shown, Tipu gave generously to the temples of Malabar as well and none
of his actions suggest that he was a religious bigot.
S. Rajendu, a Palakkad-based historian and author of Mysore Padayottam-

Irunnoottiyanpathu Varshangal (Mysore Rule-250 Years) (2017), says: “There are
instances of Hyder and Tipu plundering temples but that was only because wealth was
hoarded in the temples in Malabar. There was no conception of nation or religion at the
time that motivated the ruler’s actions.”
This become evident when we see that mappilas like Athan Gurukkal of Manjeri also
revolted against Tipu in 1788-89 and Tipu suppressed this rebellion with the help of
Ravi Varma, who belonged to the Zamorin’s family.
Tipu intended to have a long-term base in Malabar and even began to build a fort at a
place that he founded some distance from Calicut called Farooqabad (now Feroke).
Construction began at the site when Tipu visited Malabar in 1788, but it was never
finished as Tipu’s forces were driven out before it could be. Locals who have seen the site
say that the foundations and initial constructions are still visible, but access to the site
is now blocked as the path leading to the fort falls in a site that is being legally contested.
A sign from the Kerala Department of Archaelogy at a locked gated passage greets
visitors attempting to look for the fort of Farooqabad, the capital that Tipu planned for
his province of Malabar.
Soon, Tipu would cede his claim on Malabar and in 1799, this last bulwark against the
great expansion of the East India Company, would be killed on the battlefield.
Entry of the Colonial State:
The English, like the Portuguese and the Dutch, came to Kerala primarily for commercial
purposes. But unlike their predecessors, they were about to establish a colonial empire
in India on the Malabar coast.
By the 17th century, the English had established relations with the native powers of
Kerala such as the Samoothiri, the rulers of Venad and Attingal and established factors
at Vizhinjam, Anjengo (Anjuthengu), Kozhikkode and Thalasseri.
Relations with Kozhikode began in 1615 when Capt. Keeling arrived and concluded a
treaty with the Samoothiri. As per the treaty the English promised assistance in helping
to oust the Portuguese from Kodungallur and Kochi in return for freedom of trade in
Kozhikode.
The English obtained from the ruler of Venad permission to build a factor at Vizhinjam
in 1644. In 1684 a similar permission was obtained from the Rani of Attingal to build a
factory at Anjengo. This was beneficial to the English as Anjengo commanded the line of
water communication to the north and provided facilities for trade. The factory at
Thalassery was erected in the 1690s with the help of the Kolathiri and in spite of the
opposition of Kurangoth Nair. It became one of the affiliated factories of Mumbai in 1702
and its affairs were administered by a chief and council called factors.
This was not without opposition. Kurangoth Nair raided the Thalassery factory during
1704-05. Then the English erected a fort in 1708. Later in 1719, the Kurangoth Nair
entered into a treaty with the English granting them monopoly of pepper trade. The
English could also oust the Ali Raja from Dharmapatanam and acquire the monopoly of
trade from the Kolathiri.
By the end of the 18th century the English East India Company had acquired enough
power to be ‘courted, respected and feared by all the Rajahs’. This led to the acquisition
of exclusive and duty free trade in spices and sandalwood.
In their fight against Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, the Company helped the local rulers.
Thalassery became the protecting ground of many local chieftains. By the treaty of
Sreerangapattanam in 1792, the whole of Malabar were ceded to the English by Tipu.
After 1799, South Canara came into English possession. With regard to Thiruvitankur
and Kochi, the English entered into separate treaties treating them as vassal states.
After Malabar came into their possession, the Governor of Bombay was authorized to
negotiate provisional settlements with the local chieftains and a Joint Commission was
set up. The Joint Commissioners made separate agreements with the local rulers fixing
the revenue and setting their Malikhana. Later in 1793, Malabar was divided in two
administrative divisions – northern and southern with headquarters at Thalassery and
Cherplassery respectively. Each division was placed under a superintendent. A
supervisor and Chief Magistrate was appointed for the whole of Malabar with
headquarters at Kozhikode. In 1796 the office of the Supervisor was merged in a
Commission which was abolished when Malabar was transferred from Mumbai to
Madras Presidency (May 20, 1800). Major Macleod became the Principal Collector on Oct
1, 1801.
As regards the native states, the Company entered in to separate and fresh treaties with
Thiruvitamkur and Kochi. By the treaty of 1791, the Raja of Kochi agreed to become a
vassal of the English. The territories captured from Tippu were transferred to the Raja.
He was assured full protection as an ally of the company. Kochi thus came under the
political control of the British.
With regard to Thiruvitamkur, a treaty was signed in 1795. By this treaty, the Raja
accepted British supremacy. The company agreed to help the state in the event of any
external aggression. The treaty of 1805 signed at the initiative of Col. Macaulay and Velu
Thampi made Travancore a subsidiary ally of the British accepting British protection.
The treaty conferred on the British the specific power to interfere in its internal affairs.
The treaty of 1805 resulted in the loss of political freedom of Thiruvitamkur.
Thus within a short span of time after the exit of Tippu, the whole of Kerala passed
under the political control of the English East India Company.
The British State was fundamentally different than its predecessors. It was focusing on
the economic and political subjugation of the people, and was less interested in
enforcing Caste norms as State policy. Kingdoms of Cochin and Travancore entered into
Subsidiary Alliance with the East India Company. As a result they were forced to
modernize their systems of Governance. British entrepreneurs, businessmen and clergy
were to be freely integrated into these Kingdoms. As a result, the Feudal economic
systems of these regions came to be integrated with the vast, global British Colonial
Economy.
Agrarian settlement in Malabar
The British policy was aimed at winning the support of the local chieftains to create a
social base for their rule and to collect the maximum revenue to meet military
expenditure. The Janmam was recognized as property right and the Janmy as the
absolute owner of the land. Kanom was seen both as a mortgage and a lease which could
be terminated at the end of 12 years. Verumpattom was seen as a tenancy at will.
British law courts could enforce the authority of the land lords.
Janmakanamaryada - policy of minimal/optimal taxation/no excessive tax
The British agrarian settlement produced many
consequences. It did not respect traditional practices and violated Janma Kana Maryada
(norms). The state appropriated a large share of the peasant surplus. It resulted in the
impoverishment of the peasantry. In the settlement of 1805, the Kanakkar got only one-
third after deducting from the gross produce the seed and exactly the same for expenses
of cultivation; of the rest 60%was to be given to the State and 40% to the Janmy. No
systematic survey and settlement was made till 1900 and the methods were very
excessive tax was negative of British
arbitrary. not interfering traditions were their positive
Apart from the assessment being excessive it was unequal and great disparity exited
between prevailing market prices and the rates adopted by government for valuation of
produce in monetary terms for revenue collection.
The beginning of agrarian tension in rural areas may be considered as the direct
outcome of these settlements. Revenue arrears accumulated and distraint and sale of
property for the realization of revenue became common. This was in addition to
attachment of household goods and physical maltreatment. Legally the revenue was to
be realized from the landlord but they generally assigned this responsibility to the
tenants by making it a condition of the title deed. So the burden fell on the peasants.
Janmy recognized as the absolute owner of the land, got the additional power of
enhancing his due at the time of renewal of lease or give an over lease (Melcharth) to
another who was prepared to pay a higher rent. The jamny could also approach the
judicial courts for judgements in his favour. William Logan, an official of the British
government, was critical of the imposition of European ideas of property on customary
Malayali law. But the government, keen to have ‘a political force on the side of the
government’ ignored such notes of dissent.
Benjamin Ward and Corner surveyed land but their estimates of cultivated areas of
Malabar and Travancore were rough estimates. But they found that the cultivated land
area in Malabar was only about 0.58 million acres out of a total area of more than 5
million acres. A journey from Madras through Mysore, Canara and
Malabar - book of Francis Buchanan
The policy enunciated by the rulers of Thiruvitankur were more consistent and judicious.
Francis Buchanan travelling through the state in 1800 found the ‘bulk of the rural
population to be contented and prosperous’ Buchanan’s work has been cited as a good
example of ‘Survey Modality’, a means of creating knowledge on the colonized people. He
quantified whatever ‘knowledge’ he gained whether it was land measurement or
population. Dispensing with traditional classifications of land, Buchanan classified land
on the basis of its physical extent. These were faulty methods. The Buchanan suggested
the conversion of forests in to plantations, production for the market and maximum
utilization of resources. The European observer, in the words of K.N.Ganesh, ‘becomes a
political merchant, resourceful businessman and ends up as an entrepreneur prepared
to transform the landscape that he sees.’
Plantations
Plantations began to be opened towards the end of the 19th century. The British were the
initial investors in plantations and British capital was largely attracted towards
Thiruvitankur than to British Malabar. The British Kannan Devan Hill Produce
Company and the Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Company were the largest foreign
companies.
Land was given on favourable terms. This led to an increase in number and in the area
under cultivation in plantations. This generated employment. Transport and
communication also developed.
Plantation works was not based on caste hierarchy and permitted labour mobility - people began going for
plantation works - eastern regions
In Coastal parts of Kerala, caste empowerment happened as below
Caste Empowerment:
The British invested in Coir Industry and Coir factories sprang up across the coastal
regions of Kerala. The increase of spice trade and loss of State monopoly of spice trade
encouraged farmers to indulge in farming of spices, especially pepper. Tea was also a
major are of interest to the British. A vast labour force was created by these
developments, who were outside the limitations imposed by the erstwhile Feudal
Economy which forced them to take up Caste based economic roles.
Oppressed classes began integrated to Economy - economic empowerment
This economic empowerment of the oppressed Castes enabled them to demand social
and political rights. These events can be classified into the Renaissance Movement.
This is the theme that defines the pre-independence history of Kerala.
Early Protests against the British:

The British conquered Malabar and brought the Kingdom of Cochin and Travancore
under their suzerainty. They began to interfere in local economy and legal system which
were feudal in nature. With the establishment of English supremacy in the late 18th
century the history of Kerala subjected to a lot of changes. The period after this can be
considered as a period of challenge and response.
The early native resistance movements were led by such diverse elements as disposed
local princes, feudal chieftains, aggrieved peasants, tribal communities and others.
Kathleen Gough the anthropologist had classified these early movement in to five
categories
– restorative, religious, social banditry, terrorist vengeance and armed insurrection.
The revolts of Pazhassi Raja in Malabar, Velu Thampi in Thiruvitamkur, Paliath
Achan in Kochi, the Kurichiyas in Wayanad and the Moplahs in Eranad and
Valluvanad comes under this category.
During the British period there occurred stiff, violent resistance against them at
Anjengo in 1695, at Thalassery in 1704 and again at Anjengo in 1721.
The Patinjare Kovilakom Rajas of the Samuthiri family also raised the banner of revolt.
Following the withdrawal of Tippu, the ruling Samoothiri returned to Kozhikode in 1792.
When his request to restore the territories was turned down by the English, he revolted.
The Raja was supported by Unni Muppan a Moplah Chief, Poligar chiefs of Coimbatore,
Palakkad Raja and others. The British pursued the prince, arrested his nephews and
brother and finally came to an agreement with the prince who agreed to live in peace,
accepting a nominal pension from the company.
The Anjengo Revolts (Attingal Revolts)
Anjengo was one of the earliest commercial settlement of the English East India
Company in India. During 1695 and 1721, there took place a serious anti British
outbreak in the Attingal – Anchutengu zones. They are known in history as the Anjengo
Revolts.
It was in 1684 that the English E.I. Company obtained from the Rani of Attingal a sandy
plot of land at Anchutengu for the establishment of a factory for trade purposes. Here
they built a fort which was completed in 1695. A depot for military stores was also
opened there. The factory was established there mainly to break up the Dutch monopoly
in pepper trade. Soon Anjengo developed in to the most important British possessions on
the West Coast, next only to Bombay.
Later, under pressure from the English factors at Anjengo, the Rani of Attingal was
forced to grant them the monopoly of trade in pepper, the most valuable commercial
crop of Kerala. With the monopoly of pepper trade, the English manipulated the price of
pepper to the detriment of the interests of the local cultivator. The income which the
cultivators had been getting from pepper trade was steadily decreased while the
company amassed great fortunes.
Another cause of the revolt was displeasure of the Matampis. As allies of royal power, the
E.I. Company earned their displeasure. The Matampis were influential local leaders who
mobilized the people of the locality. Moreover the unscrupulous methods of trading, their
corrupt practices like private trade and amassing huge fortunes roused popular feelings
against the company.
Revolt of 1697
The over bearing conduct and corrupt practices of the English factors antagonized the
local people who launched a violent attack on the Anjengo fort in November 1697. They
attacked the factors and massacred Englishmen. Their attempt to capture the fort failed
and the rebels were forced to retreat in the face of the superior military might of the
British. This led to a fresh agreement with the Rani of Attingal. By the new treaty, the
Rani agreed to rebuild the factory and to pay 80,000 panams as compensation. The
Queen had already granted the company permission to purchase all the pepper her
country produced. In 1695, the English fortified the settlement but the Queen at the
instigation of the Dutch opposed it. However the English completed the work in 1695. In
spite of the failure of the revolt, the rebels continued to be hostile to the British.
Revolt of 1721
The local resentment erupted into a major crisis in 1721. The British continued to follow
their old policy of economic exploitation. Further officers at Anjengo indulged in
activities exhibiting racial arrogance. This precipitated the revolt of 1721.
The immediate provocation for the revolt, however was the Easter Dinner given by the
company. During the course of the celebrations, a mistress of the company’s interpreter
insulted a Muslim merchant by throwing coloured water or powder at him. The matter
was reported to the chief factor who tactlessly ordered the punishment of the Muslim
merchant instead of the real culprit. The infuriated merchant was waiting for an
opportunity to wreck vengeance on the chief factor for his partiality. Although the
Governor or Bombay tried for a compromise, the insult was not forgotten. Added to this
was the policy of the English factors to give costly presents to the Rani
of Attingal to win more concessions. But the Nair chieftains demanded that the presents
due to the Rani be handed over to them for transmission to her. This demand was
resisted by the chief factor Gyfford who insisted to visit the Rani with the presents.
The British force was attacked on 15 April 1721 and 10 Englishmen including Gyfford
were killed. The rebels then besieged the fort for about six months. It was lifted only
when reinforcements came from Thalassery.
Pazhassi Revolt (1793-1805)
Kottayam is not present one, near Kannur
The revolt of Pazhassi Raja was the most serious outbreak against the British in South
India. It was the widest and largest resistance movement in the Kerala coast. The prime
mover in the Rebellion was Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja of Kottayam. As he belonged to
the Patinjare Kovilakom branch of the Kottayam royal family (Purakizhnad) which had
its headquarters at Pazhassi, the rebellion is called as the Pazhassi revolt. Pazhassi Raj
had maintained cordial relations with the company. But later the relations turned sour.
By the treaty of Seringapatam, which ended the 3rd Anglo Mysore War, the whole of
Malabar fell under the company’s rule. This was the beginning of the conflict. The
English proclaimed that they were the virtual rulers of Malabar and its people and that
the chiefs were their subjects. In 1793, the company leased out Kottayam territory which
had been in possession of the Mysoreans to Veera Kerala Varma, the ruler of
Kurumbranad. There by they violated the previous agreement entered into with Pazhassi
that after the exit of Tippu, Wayanad and Kottayam will be restored back to him. The
lease was renewed for five years in 1794. Pazhassi prevented the English from collecting
revenue in Kottayam and threatened to cut down the pepper vines. When the British
renewed the lease granted to Kurumbranad Raja for another five years, Pazhassi
resented it and rebelled openly in 1795. As the Raja enjoyed the support of all section of
the people, the English began to look up on him as ‘the most intractable and
unreasonable of all the Rajas’ and took measures to subjugate him. The Raja sought
asylum in the Puralimalai jungles and adopted guerilla system of warfare. The British
troops stationed at Wayanad were forced to withdraw. Though reinforcement came in
1797, the British forces were overpowered by the Kurichiyas and Nairs, who assembled
in groups, erected barriers, cut off British communications and refused to pay taxes. The
eastern branch of the Samoothiris family allied itself with PazhassiRaja. The moplahs of
Malabar led by Chempan Pokker and the Gounders of Coimbatore joined the rebels.
Pazhassi Raja also sought the help of Mysore in driving out the English from Wayanad.
The hilly nature of the country and the strong support he received from the tribals
prevented the British to take any effective action against the Raja.
By the agreement (1797) it was decided to withdraw British forces from Wayanad.
The company also cancelled the lease granted to Kurumbranad Raja. Pazhassi was
prevailed up on to call off the rebellion. He was granted a pension of Rs.8000 and he
agreed to live in peace with the company. The company also agreed to restore the
treasure captured from the Pazhassi Palace. Peace was thus restored for the time being,
but it was only a truce soon to be violated.

Kerala History Class 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kerala History Class 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRICTLY FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION KERALA HISTORY FOR KAS

(i) Pre-Independence socio-political movements.

Seeds of Change: Invasion of Mysore

S. Rajendu, a Palakkad-based historian and author of Mysore Padayottam-

Entry of the Colonial State:

Agrarian settlement in Malabar

This is the theme that defines the pre-independence history of Kerala.

Early Protests against the British:

The Anjengo Revolts (Attingal Revolts)

Kottayam is not present one, near Kannur

You might also like